[karlerss]

In OP article the interfacing with real world is solved by some group voting.

In the real world, when disagreements arise, we have voting + due process + a hierarchy of courts. It could be argued that due process is an essential part of finding justice.

Baking due process into a smart contract is, although extremely interesting, probably impossible.

[rndmio]

Great, but take the example in the article. I roll in with my heavies and at gun point force enough of you to vote that the contract was complete even if it wasn't. You can't engineer people away and when you try you've undoubtedly missed something.

[amarant]

But if you were just going to rob them at gunpoint, why did you need the smart contact?

Smart contacts exists so that you don't need the heavies nor the guns, you can just exploit a "bug" in the contract and run off with the cash, preferably without anyone knowing who you even are.

[knuthsat]

This boils down to the basic problem of a ruleset.

It's nice when everyone abides by the same ruleset. But there will always be individuals that will behave outside of it.

Like, we can all play capitalism and try to outcompete each other, but eventually there's going to be someone that just abandons that ruleset and murders all competitors.

Smart contracts are just a better ruleset, still not enough.

[bgroat]

I always roll my eyes when crypto bros roll out the argument that BTC would bring peace because there's an immutable record of who owns what.

I can still just seize the factory, ledger be damned.

Or deploy a military to seize your private keys. Unless you're sole copy is in your own head it's on a hard drive SOMEWHERE